1
   

Is Thought the Actual Force Behind Creation

 
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 07:43 pm
@Pathfinder,
The only eternity that man can know, it seems to me, is transcendental self-consciousness. Man can know eternity, but is never finished knowing the temporal-spatial reality his transcendental structure is imposed on. This transcendental structure is inferred from his experience, but this inference is only possible because of logos, which operates digitally and continuously simultaneously. Man synthesizes qualia by means of logos, and this same logos can synthesize itself. Abstraction is synthesis by negation. Synthesis is the negation of accident as the revelation of essence. Man will find no Truth beyond the one he eternally am. (a better word, in this case, than "is.") "Before Abraham was, I am."
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 08:13 pm
@Pathfinder,
"In the beginning was the word (logos)" Before Abraham was, I am (logos).
Logos is the rational prinicple of nature and reality, the basis or order and reason (for the Greeks) God. The Force behind creation and the imposition of order on chaos and the formless void.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 09:17 pm
@prothero,
prothero;133718 wrote:
"In the beginning was the word (logos)" Before Abraham was, I am (logos).
Logos is the rational prinicple of nature and reality, the basis or order and reason (for the Greeks) God. The Force behind creation and the imposition of order on chaos and the formless void.


Yes! Potent stuff. It seems to me lately that logos is a twin transcendental. It is rational like number, but continuous like intuitive space and time. Logos or discourse is also metaphorical/analogical, which is completely unlike number. Logos is both (ratio)nal and (dis)cursive, discrete and continuous, analog and digital.

The reason that Christ is the Logos is now quite clear to me. God as God is noumena, or negation of appearence. (Negative theology). God only appears via incarnation. God is 1, or more perfectly: a negative sign. "I and my Father are one."Christ is the twin trancendental. And it is only within Hegelian Dialectical Time that man can discover the Eternity he always am.
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 08:39 am
@Reconstructo,
Existence void of intelligence does not know it exists.

The real Mystery of existence is discovered in that truth.

Without some form of intelligence able to acknowledge and speculate, existence could exist, or not exist, and it would not matter, except for what things have taken place during its progression through time.

The dilemma man finds himself in is that he cannot understand the dynamics around the intelligence he knows he has, and the intelligence he sees in the creation around him. He cannot help but relate the two.

And because of this, man has created many hypothesis regarding the state of intelligence in the origin of existence, forgetting that, in all of the effort, all of this is nothing more than intelligence trying to define itself. It is looking into a mirror of itself, and although recognizing itself, still unable to know its truth and origin.

Intelligence recognizes its attributes, but it cannot see its source. The fact that intelligence even knows it exists, and recognizes the intelligence of design, is testament to the fact of an 'origin of intelligence'.

Just because that origin remains a mystery does not dismiss its reality anymore than a man regarding his reflection in a pool of water knows that he had an origin, even if he had never known his parents or remembers any childhood. This is not a rock looking into creation and not knowing anything of its existence, having no intelligence or ability to recognize anything. This is an intelligence being aware of intelligence all around it, and aware that it is a part of that intelligence at some level.

Inability to plot the point of origin does not interfere with the recognition and appreciation of this intelligence, it simply means that we are not as intelligent as we would like to be.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 08:49 am
@Pathfinder,
Its not exactly the same. If you looked into a mirror and you saw no reflection, it might give you a clue. I believe I see footprints but till I see the creature that made them I have to accept the only logical conclusion.
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 08:39 pm
@xris,
xris;134062 wrote:
Its not exactly the same. If you looked into a mirror and you saw no reflection, it might give you a clue. I believe I see footprints but till I see the creature that made them I have to accept the only logical conclusion.


Which is what? Do you mean that until you see the creature that made the footprints you will assume there is no such creature at all?

I am not suggesting that we define the creature, just that we acknowledge that there are footprints, and that they were made by something intelligent because the footprints we are seeing are sign of intelligence. You seem to want to ignore anything that remains a mystery even when you have evidence that the mystery is there somewhere. That is your option and choice. But don't delude yourself into believing that there is no origin just because you choose to ignore it for lack of identification.

Have you ever seen a quark or an electron? I will bet a month's wages that you would not look at this the same way with regard to those mysteries.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 08:42 pm
@Pathfinder,
Superstition is the confusion of the transcendental with the incidental. "God" is within man, as the Form of his perception. If there is another kind of God, I don't see how s/he can be proven or disproven or even understood beyond the limits of the human Form of perception.

This is just my opinion of course.
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 08:50 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;134307 wrote:
Superstition is the confusion of the transcendental with the incidental. "God" is within man, as the Form of his perception. If there is another kind of God, I don't see how s/he can be proven or disproven or even understood beyond the limits of the human Form of perception.

This is just my opinion of course.



Another kind of God????when did mankind ever prove one kind in particular?

I would have to disagree with you that whatever the cause for existence is, is some perception of mankind. Mankind has nothing to do with the existence of the origin of existence except that we seem to be endowed with some degree of its intelligence.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 03:54 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;134305 wrote:
Which is what? Do you mean that until you see the creature that made the footprints you will assume there is no such creature at all?

I am not suggesting that we define the creature, just that we acknowledge that there are footprints, and that they were made by something intelligent because the footprints we are seeing are sign of intelligence. You seem to want to ignore anything that remains a mystery even when you have evidence that the mystery is there somewhere. That is your option and choice. But don't delude yourself into believing that there is no origin just because you choose to ignore it for lack of identification.

Have you ever seen a quark or an electron? I will bet a month's wages that you would not look at this the same way with regard to those mysteries.
Im not ignoring it , whatever it is. How am I deluding myself because I refuse to be drawn it to making assumptions? No I have not seen an electron, have you?can you say with certainty it even exists?
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 04:16 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;134311 wrote:
Another kind of God????when did mankind ever prove one kind in particular?


Hegel finished the job, but it was started long ago....But then the Tao might have had it long before....Jesus is the perfect esoteric symbol for God Incarnate.....

The only provable God is transcendentally within man. Anything else is just a being, not Being.

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 05:18 AM ----------

Pathfinder;134311 wrote:

I would have to disagree with you that whatever the cause for existence is, is some perception of mankind. Mankind has nothing to do with the existence of the origin of existence except that we seem to be endowed with some degree of its intelligence.


I think the source of being is mysterious, but man seems to provide the pure subjectivity(also mysterious) and the nous that makes this being meaningful.

Please see my Absolute Negativity or Absolute Knowledge threads if this is interesting to you...

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 05:19 AM ----------

Thought is 1/3 of the force behind creation.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 09:28 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;85896 wrote:
Many of you may be familiar with some of the teachings that suggest that it is the collective and individual combinations of the thought process of the human being that creates the existence around us.

in essence we are our own gods according to this teaching, in variations of course.

I would like to discuss this further using my take on the subject as a teaser for a more indepth look.

I admit to leaning toward some sort of reincarnation of the soul, but my definitions of what soul is, and what reincarnation is remains a far cry from the normal teachings of most of the mainstream religions. So when I say reincarnation of the soul you will have to bear with me and read a little further to understand what I actually mean.

I am considering this possibility as credible and warranting of more study.

Lets admit that we do not know the true source of creation, and just for the sake of discussing what it might be we will call it "The Origin".

Now, The Origin, or the TO, has begun what we know exists as we reside here within it. Let's suggest that the TO thought it all up and it became reality. Existence is the first thought of the TO becoming reality.

Now this thought evolves as it expands into development and becomes existence, the universe which is now being continuously expanded upon by the further thoughts of the TO.

At some point the TO thinks to create life and this life that it creates it endows with similarities to its own conscious ability and cognizance simply for the sake of entertaining what it is and seeing it act out in a simpler form. Basically watching a reflection of itself.

So we become the thoughts of the TO come to life and are endowed with the ability to apply thought ourselves. We become conscious of our own thought processing abilities and therefore curious about our realities.


Now I will not stray from here into the creative aspects that others teach regarding us being our own gods, but I will suggest that, as the TO thought us into existence, we also now are able to use that force that was instilled into us to at least take a part in this existence in a way that is very unique to every other living thing that was created.

I like to imagine that the TO has devised a force or energy that is the essence behind the building block of life that is instilled into every human being, that is quite different from the animal kingdom in that we are a reflection of the TO, and can use this thought creative ability to evolve ourselves into more powerful thinking capabilities.

I suppose that every human is born with this life giving force that becomes his or her identity/consciousness which has been passed on from previous incarnations and continues to be passed on to new incarnations. The individual identity of each incarnation may change at birth, but the knowledge/ wisdom gained and evolved throughout these various lives is passed on as an evolving ability/skill that each new incarnation can tune into at some point of its development and add to/enhance during its lifetime.

So the TO begins the whole process by thought creation, enables its creation through us to mimic its ability, and all of creation evolves as we evolve.


before thought though ?

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 10:46 PM ----------

in the last post my point is ;

in order to think or have a thought one must exist in the first place

therefore since the TO has no essence of existence , the TO becomes irrelevent , really

so in reality thought can't create , creation

hence ologies , the study of

to understand further
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 04:44 am
@north,
North,


What we are considering here is that whatever the very first instant of creation was, that action, that spontaneity, that mystery, was thought.

Do not look at as thought the way we understand it as humans. Try to look at it as some mysterious phenomena that appeared from out of nothing as the first instance of the existence that we know. We are not suggesting that it was the thought process of a being familiar or akin to a human or some god like being. We are suggesting that it is the most primal, first aspect of the second of creation. Not the thought of something , but thought alone in the sense that thought itself is a thing outside of something else's ability to think.

Like a sucker before it becomes a thing sucked. Like a piece of wood before it becomes a chair.
0 Replies
 
Doubt doubt
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 06:50 am
@Pathfinder,
Your view is literally just as plausible as any other set forth by anyone.

what i think is important to this is i believe i and everyone with the same general experience as me has been dead and knows what its like. We where all dead before we where born as it seams to me.

second think of this. time travel exists and you go back into the past and get yourself and repeat till your standing around with 5 of yourself. Are you them? lets suppose you kill yourself(forget the paradox for this thought experiment) as in the one to first travel back. the one whos body you are in. do you get any peace of mind knowing the other yous are still there? or are you just as dead as anyone to die in a conventional way?
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 06:10 pm
@Doubt doubt,
Doubt doubt;138927 wrote:
Your view is literally just as plausible as any other set forth by anyone.

what i think is important to this is i believe i and everyone with the same general experience as me has been dead and knows what its like. We where all dead before we where born as it seams to me.

second think of this. time travel exists and you go back into the past and get yourself and repeat till your standing around with 5 of yourself. Are you them? lets suppose you kill yourself(forget the paradox for this thought experiment) as in the one to first travel back. the one whos body you are in. do you get any peace of mind knowing the other yous are still there? or are you just as dead as anyone to die in a conventional way?


well paradoxs are not really topics I get involved in because they are extremely fluctuating. If this If that.....

There is always the question that if you are dead there is no way for you to be in the future anywhere to be able to go back and bring yourself into the future. unless you are talking about paralells and than you get into a whole other paradox..
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 07:32:02